[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 140 (Monday, September 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13200-S13207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 2469
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition, and I
speak to amendment No. 2469, which was earlier offered, which has to do
with the growth formula provided for in this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor to
the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me try to be succinct as to how
this amendment would change the Dole bill. Essentially what the Dole
bill does, as drafted, is present a growth fund for the next 5 years of
$877 million. It then submits a formula under which that growth fund is
disbursed. The formula would provide funds only to 19 States. You
cannot convince me that only 19 States are going to grow in terms of
poor families in this Nation.
So what I have tried to do is come up with a fair formula that
measures the growth of poor families. The House bill has a formula in
it which measures the growth of people and then applies that to this
bill. Ours is very similar to the House, with one distinction, and the
distinction is that it would use the census data to count the increase
in poor families to determine how the growth money is spent. The House
uses the census data to count the increase in the general population.
Then, the way in which the growth money is spent is simply: The
percentage of growth is divided into the overall total growth. In that
way, every State is accommodated, and the growth funds are distributed
to each state proportionate to its share of the total growth.
Specifically, it would require the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to publish every 2 years data relating to the incidence of
poverty. The methodology employed mirrors title 13 of the United States
Code, section 141(a) of the census statute, and as I have said, is the
same as the House welfare reform bill. So people should know that what
we are doing is simply following the way the census produces the
material, under current law, and then empowering the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to disburse funds according to the results of
that data, and proportionate to each state's share of the total growth
in poor people.
There is no additional cost associated with this amendment.
I would like to add that all States are being held harmless; in other
words, no State's grant would be reduced if that State experiences a
decline in poor population. According to the present population
projections, four States are expected to experience an actual decline
of population. They are Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode
Island. These States are all held harmless in this amendment.
If, of course, the projections prove wrong and those States do
experience an increase, because no one can actually predict future
growth, they will receive their fair share of the growth formula.
If I may, I would like to contrast this with the approach taken in
the underlying bill. Eight hundred seventy-seven million dollars over 5
years is authorized in this bill to accommodate growth. As I said, only
19 States are funded with this growth formula. Under the Dole bill, the
19 States receive automatic additional funding, 2.5 percent of their
1996 grant, in each of fiscal years 1997 to 2000 if, one, their State's
welfare spending is less than the national average level of State
spending and, two, their rate of population growth is greater than the
national average population growth.
For reasons which are unclear, certain States are deemed as
qualifying if their level of State welfare spending per poor person is
less than 35 percent of the national average level of State welfare
spending per poor person in fiscal year 1996.
So Federal taxpayers are being asked to spend almost $1 billion over
5 years in the name of growth.
But, in fact, the result is that States that, until now, have spent
less than the average level of State spending in assisting their poor
will now be subsidized by taxpayers from all 50 States. I think that is
plain wrong. The State with the greatest growth--and that is
California--is significantly disadvantaged because its funding is
frozen for the next 5 years. I have distributed a letter with our
proposal, with the Dole-Hutchison formula in it and with the
difference. So there are three charts on everyone's desk tonight so
everybody can look up their State.
Certainly, the 19 States recognized in the Dole bill--and I know
Senator Hutchison will comment on this--will be cut back somewhat so
that everybody could have a fair share of the growth fund based on the
actual growth of poor people in their State as determined by the Bureau
of the Census. What could be fairer than that? If in the census you
achieve more people, the growth fund is there to give you your percent
share of the total growth fund.
So I will yield the floor for the moment. I know Senator Hutchison
would like to debate this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be managing the time on this
amendment for our side. Mr. President, I want to lay out exactly what
my amendment does, or my formula, the Dole-Hutchison formula, does.
Senator Santorum is going to have to leave in 7 minutes, so I would
like to ask him to speak for 2 or 3 minutes, and then I will lay out
the parameters of the Dole-Hutchison formula so that everyone
understands why it is the fairest formula.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for
yielding.
As I discussed the other night, I want to congratulate the Senator
from Texas for working diligently in coming up with this formula. It is
a fair formula. On the surface, it sounds like the Feinstein formula is
fair because it is based on growth in poverty population.
What the Feinstein formula ignores is how we got to the allocation in
the first place. In other words, how did we get to today? It is based
on not how many poor children there are in California, Pennsylvania, or
New Mexico; it gets to the State today based on how much the State of
California ponied up, as did the States of Texas and Pennsylvania. As a
result, you have States like California--and Pennsylvania being another
one and New York--who had large welfare contributions. They put up a
substantial State match. As a result, they got more Federal dollars. If
you put up more State money, you got more Federal money. So you had
certain States who were more generous with their welfare--or more
progressive, some would say--and put up more dollars.
Well, now the match is gone. There is no longer a match required
under the Dole substitute, the bill we are going to pass. So to suggest
that we should now take a formula based on what a State match was and
apply that in the future, based on what the growth in the poverty
population is, already gives those States that had high State matches
an artificial advantage in the first place.
So what the Hutchison formula tries to do is say--starting at this
inequity, because the Hutchison formula holds every State harmless and
says that, from there on, we are going to have the States who get less
per child under current law get more money over time to equal out what
the Pennsylvanias and Californias and New Yorks get. So her growth
formula targets the low-benefit States that are growing and allows them
to catch up with these Federal dollars.
It is fair in the sense that these are block granted funds and there
is no match required anymore. California does not want to spend a penny
on this. They will not anymore because we have a 75 percent maintenance
of effort. But California can reduce their contribution, which would be
a lot more to their State budget than Mississippi's reduction in their
welfare contribution. So they have a lot more flexibility under the
current law. There is no match requirement except to the extent of the
75 percent maintenance of effort.
[[Page S 13201]]
This is a fair way to make up the difference over a period of time.
As Senator Hutchison will very articulately tell you, they are still at
the short end of the stick because the per child expenditure for a
child from California, New York, or Pennsylvania will still be less
after 7 years than they will be in taxes, even though it is a block-
granted formula. We try to make up this inequity. I congratulate her
for her tenacity in dealing with this issue. This was the toughest
issue to deal with. Any time you try to figure out how the money is
allocated, you get all sorts of parochial interests that jump to the
floor. She was able to stick in there and handle it and bring people
together. It is one of the principal reasons this bill is on the floor
and in shape to pass the Senate.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes of our time.
I want to start by thanking the Senator from Pennsylvania. I appreciate
all of his efforts on this bill. He is one of the first people who
understood the balance in the formula.
Mr. President, this formula is very carefully balanced. That is why
it is fair. The challenge we had was to make a fair formula in a
totally reformed welfare system with a 5-year block grant.
Now, here was the problem. You have high-welfare States that gain in
the beginning because they are block granted for 5 years. These are
States that have put more into their welfare spending and therefore
have gotten more out. A State that has put more in has also gotten more
Federal matching funds. Therefore, they have gotten more total AFDC
dollars. Now, you have low-benefit States that have not put up as much
money. My State is 35th in per capita income and may not have been able
to put up as much. So they have gotten fewer Federal dollars.
In we come with welfare reform. Now we are going to lessen the State
requirement. We will have no State requirement at all in the last 2
years of this 5-year plan. So we have to reform the formula as well, to
keep the low-benefit States that are growing from being in a desperate
situation. So the challenge was not to take from anyone, but to allow
these low-benefit, high-growth States to be able to win in the end, so
that they march toward parity.
If I can say one thing about this formula, it is that we have a goal
of parity at some point in the future. I would like to be at parity
today; so would Senator Domenici, so would Senator Nickles, and so
would Senator Gramm. We would like to be at parity right now. But even
after 5 years, our States will not be at parity. But we know that we
have to make accommodations so that everyone can feel that they have
gained something from welfare reform. So we are willing to move slowly
toward parity, which should be the goal of this country--for every poor
person to have the same basic general grant in welfare. My solution,
the Dole-Hutchison formula, does exactly that.
Some have said that food stamps make up for inequity. This is not
true. If you put AFDC and food stamps together, which gives you the
fairest picture, even after 5 years with the Dole-Hutchison formula,
here is what you have. The higher welfare States like California that
are frozen still get more than their percent of the poverty population
in Federal dollars at the end of 5 years. California will get 14.41
percent of the Federal dollars under my formula, whereas, they have
14.1 percent of the poverty population. So they will be getting $141
million more than their actual share of the poverty population. Because
they are frozen at the higher level, they are going to be big winners
in the beginning, and they will still not be losers at the end.
Hawaii, for instance, will have double its poverty population in
Federal benefits. New York will have 9.94 percent of all the Federal
AFDC dollars, whereas it has 7.6 percent of the poverty population.
Massachusetts will get 1.99 percent of the Federal dollars, whereas, it
has 1.7 percent of the poverty population. Michigan will get 4.16
percent of the dollars, whereas, it has 3.6 percent of the poverty
population.
Washington State will get 1.96 percent of the total Federal dollars
whereas they have 1.5 percent of the poverty population.
Now, these are States that are going to be frozen at the higher
levels. That is why these States win even though they are frozen. If
you take their Federal dollars frozen plus their food stamps they still
come out ahead of their poverty population percent.
Now, what is wrong with the Feinstein amendment? Let me say that the
Feinstein amendment, she has done her homework. I admire the Senator
from California very much. Here is what is wrong with this amendment.
It redistributes the growth even to high-benefit States so they get a
double advantage. They get a high Federal benefit in the beginning and
they get the growth.
So what happens? They increase in poverty requirements, which are an
incentive to even the high-welfare States to continue having growing
poverty statistics.
The second thing that is wrong with the Feinstein amendment is parity
will never be reached. We will never reach the goal in this country to
have general parity across the Nation of all of the AFDC grants.
Let me give some examples of the difference between the Dole-
Hutchison formula and what Senator Feinstein's formula would do to the
poor States.
California receives $1,016 per poor person now. Alabama receives $148
per poor person, and yet under the Feinstein amendment Alabama will
lose $11 million more under her formula than they would get under mine
because they will grow under mine because they are poor.
Arkansas, $137 per poor person as compared to $1,016 from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The 6 minutes of the Senator
has expired.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to be extended 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining on her
time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me finish this thought, and I want
to yield the floor to Senator Domenici for 2 minutes.
We have the poor States that will continue to lose under the
Feinstein amendment.
The third thing that is wrong with the Feinstein amendment is that it
directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine poverty
estimates by means of sampling, estimation, or any other method that
the Secretary determines will produce reliable data.
Now, Mr. President, that is a hole as big as a Mack truck. Who knows
what the formula might be? We just cannot live with that. We must have
something that we can count on that will not be jiggered or changed
over the years, to be considered fair.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I yield the Senator from New
Mexico 2 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, thank you.
Senator Hutchison, let me just say we actually should call the new
formula in the Dole amendment not the Dole-Hutchison but the Hutchison-
Dole.
I commend the Senator also for the tremendous job done in trying to
create parity and what I perceive to be fairness. I have great
admiration for anybody that tries to get more for their State.
Obviously, I admire the distinguished Senator from California for
trying to get more for California.
Essentially, to just give an example, California and New York each
start off with more Federal spending per poor person than New Mexico,
Texas, Alabama, and Virginia combined. Let me put it one more time,
just taking California. California starts off with more Federal
spending per poor person than New Mexico, Texas, Alabama, and Virginia
combined.
Now, if we are going to have a formula that perpetuates that
disparity, then why would we from States like New Mexico, Texas,
Alabama, Virginia, and many others, want to be part of this change in
our Federal Government's approach to the welfare system? Why we would
want to join and put our States and our poor people in a perpetual
inferiority position--not a little bit, but a dramatic difference.
The Senator from Texas has stated the difference. We will never catch
up.
The distinguished Senator from Texas did not come up with a formula
that would take from the rich States, the States that have harvested
the program so well. We did not decide in our work together--I worked
on it with you, the Senator from New Mexico worked with you--to take
from them.
[[Page S 13202]]
We just said do not continue to leave the poorer States in a
perpetual state of disparity beyond any recognition. There will be a
welfare program in New Mexico under this that will be one-third of that
in New York. My State will lose $23 million. It is one of the hardest
hit States. There are many more like it.
I say to the Senator from California, good luck on getting things for
California but on this one, this formula will not work because it is
not fair. I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Dole substitute to H.R. 4 authorizes
a supplemental appropriation of $878 million over fiscal years 1997
through 2000 to be allocated to certain States in addition to the funds
they would receive under the temporary assistance for needy families
block grant. States qualify for the supplemental funds if one, total
population--not just poor population--growth in fiscal year 1996 is
above the national average and State welfare expenditures per poor
person are at or below 50 percent of the national average, or two,
State welfare expenditures per poor person are at or below 35 percent
of the national average, regardless of population growth.
States have a one-time opportunity to qualify in fiscal year 1997. If
they do, they will receive a 2.5-percent increase in their block grant
funding each year, 1997-2000, regardless of whether they continue to
meet the eligibility standards in subsequent years. Likewise, States
that fail to qualify in fiscal year 1997 are excluded from receiving
any of the supplemental funds even if they were to quality later. The
practical effect of the provision would be to boost cumulative funding
in 19 so-called growth States--but not California--by 10.4 percent. The
remaining 31 States, including New York, would be held harmless; their
allocations under the main block grant would remain frozen through
fiscal year 2000, Not surprisingly, fully two-thirds of the Senators
who represent the winner States are Republicans.
Mr. President, there are major flaws with this provision that makes
me wonder just how serious its proponents are. First, general
population growth is not a reliable proxy for an increase in a State's
share of the growth of poor people who qualify for welfare benefits.
Many rapid-growth States attract new residents precisely because their
economies are strong and work opportunities are good. It is entirely
possible that a State experiencing rapid growth due to economic
expansion could see its share of poor people decline. Conversely, a
slow-growing Rustbelt State could see its share of total population
decline but its share of poor people eligible for welfare increase.
The second problem is that supplemental fund will be made available
only to those growth States whose State expenditures per poor person
are at or below 50 percent of the national average. And then there is
the curious provision that rewards nongrowth States if their State
expenditures per poor person are at or below 35 percent of the national
average.
A State could have a large share of childless working or elderly
poor. These individuals would dilute per capita welfare expenditures
even though they would not be welfare recipients. More importantly, are
now about to enter the business of rewarding States who will not spend
their own resources on their own poor people? Are we going to start
punishing States that do commit their own resources by reallocating
scarce Federal funds away from them? I will have much more to say on
this subject when we take up the formula amendment the senior Senator
from Florida has offered. Suffice it to say at this point that I will
not stand by and allow our Federal system to be wrecked in one fell
swoop.
Senator Feinstein's amendment is identical to the provision in the
bill the House passed pertaining to supplemental block grant funds.
Each State's annual share of the supplemental block grant, if any,
would be proportionate to its share of the increase in the number of
poor people nationwide. New York, theoretically, could be eligible for
supplemental block grant funds.
The Feinstein amendment requires the Census Bureau to update and
publish data relating to the incidence of poverty for each State,
county, and local school district unit of government every 2 years,
commencing in fiscal year 1996 and authorizes an annual appropriation
of $1.5 million for this purpose.
Mr. President, I support the Feinstein amendment, but it does have
two flaws. First, an increase in the number of poor people--while
better than the proxy used in the underlying substitute--still is not a
precise proxy for an increase in the number of poor people who would be
welfare beneficiaries. Once again, low-income men and women without
dependent children and the elderly poor, for instance, would not be
AFDC recipients but would count in the population tallies that
determine whether a State qualifies for the supplemental block grant.
More importantly, while updating poverty data more frequently is a
desirable public policy goal, which I support, statisticians are not
confident yet that accurate subcounty counts are possible in any
context other than the decennial census.
Collecting data more frequently typically will harm slow-growing
States like New York when the data sets are plugged into allocation
formulas. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that poverty data do not
reflect regional or State-by-State differences in the cost of living. A
family of our just above the poverty threshold living in New York City
is demonstrably worse off than a family of four just below the
threshold living in rural Mississippi. Research indicates that
differences in the cost of living can be as great as 50 percent.
Each year, in collaboration with the Taubman Center for State and
Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, I publish
a document entitled ``The Federal Budget and the States'' that details
the flow of funds for the previous fiscal year. Aficionados of the
report know that I refer to it as the ``Fisc.'' I send a copy to each
Senator every summer and hope that my colleagues read it. At any rate,
the most recent edition of the Fisc contains, for the second year, the
``Friar/Leonard state cost of living index,'' which is named for its
cocreators, my coauthors, Monica E. Friar, an indefatigable research
assistant, and Professor Herman B. Leonard, academic dean of the
teaching programs and Baker Professor of Public Finance at the Kennedy
School. If we were to apply the Friar/Leonard index to subnational
poverty statistics, we would find that New York's 1992 poverty rate
jumps from the 18th highest rate nationwide to the 6th highest.
One of the amendments I offered last, Friday would require the Census
Bureau to develop cost of living index values for each of the States--
at a minimum, and at the sub-State level, if practicable--and apply
those values to the national poverty threshold in determining the
number of poor people for each State. The index value for the United
States would be 100. A State such as New York might have a hypothetical
index value of 106 while Mississippi might have an index value of 94.
Applying the index values for the two States to the national poverty
threshold would increase the income limit and hence the number of poor
people in New York and decrease the income limit and the number of poor
people in Mississippi.
Earlier this year, a National Academy of Sciences [NSA] panel of
experts released a congresssionally commissioned study on redefining
poverty. The report, edited by Constance F. Cirro and Robert T.
Michael, is entitled ``Measuring Poverty: A New Approach.''
According to a Congressional Research Service reviews,
The NAS panel (one member among the 12 member panel
dissented with the majority recommendations) makes several
recommendations which, if fully adopted, could dramatically
alter the way poverty in the U.S. is measured, how Federal
funds are allotted to States, and how eligibility for many
Federal programs is determined. The recommended poverty
measures would be based on more items in the family budget,
would take major noncash benefits and taxes into account, and
would be adjusted for regional differences in living costs.
. . . Under current measures the share of the poor
population living in each region in 1992 was: Northeast:
16.9%, Midwest: 21.7%, South: 40.0%, and West: 21.4%. Under
the proposed new measure, the estimated share in each region
would be: Northeast 18.9% Midwest: 20.2%, South: 36.4%, and
West: 24.5%.
[[Page S 13203]]
The CRS report, ``Redefining Poverty in the United States: National
Academy of Science Panel Recommendations,'' was written by Thomas P.
Gabe.
Mr. President, despite the flaws I have just mentioned, the Feinstein
amendment is enormously superior to the underlying provision, and I
encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the senior
Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to extend that 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think I only have--
Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. GRAHAM. This would be 90 seconds in addition.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I get 4
more minutes because I have two other speakers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask the Senator from Florida if he would yield
without losing any of the time for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 2575, as Modified
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
unanimous consent that it be modified. It is an amendment on my part to
conform the amendment on the family cap to the Dole amendment as
offered.
My previous amendment was in anticipation of the amendment. This just
makes it conform with the Dole amendment. I ask that it be filed as
such and take the place of my previously filed amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
Mr. President, I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Strike the matter inserted in lieu of the matter on page
49, line 20, through page 50, line 5, and insert the
following:
``(c) State Option To Deny Assistance for Children Born to
Families Receiving Assistance.--At the option of the State to
which a grant is made under section 403 may provide that the
grant shall not be used to provide assistance for a minor
child who is born to--
``(1) a recipient of assistance under the program funded
under this part; or
``(2) an individual who received such benefits at any time
during the 10-month period ending with the birth of the
child.
Amendment No. 2469
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise just to put the Senate on notice
that this is not the only alternative to the formula that we will have
an opportunity to consider during the debate on the welfare reform
bill.
There will be other amendments that will be offered by Senator
Bumpers, others, and myself tomorrow which go to the more fundamental
issue.
That fundamental issue is that not only as the Presiding Officer has
correctly pointed out have we changed the status quo by no longer
requiring a local effort, and therefore continuing a formula whose
numbers were predicated on that effort, is irrational.
We go beyond that. We impose new obligations on the States,
particularly in the areas of child care and preparation for work. We
are going to be requiring essentially the same obligation from each of
the 50 States with enormously different amounts of Federal resources in
order to reach those obligations. There are some States that will have
to spend over 80 percent of their Federal money in order to meet the
new Federal mandates. Other States can reach those Federal mandates
with 40 percent or less of the Federal money.
So I suggest this is not just an issue of allocating money between
Texas, California, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Florida, or the other
States. It goes to the fundamental issue of: Can we achieve the result
that this bill is intended to achieve, which is to assist people
through appropriate State action to move from welfare dependency to the
independence of work?
My suggestion is that we will not be able to achieve that objective,
and therefore I urge the amendment as offered by my good friend, the
Senator from California, be defeated and, frankly, that tomorrow we be
prepared to engage in a very fundamental debate about how we are going
to allocate resources that, in my opinion, is critical to whether this
goal of welfare to work is attainable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from
California.
I appreciate what she is trying to accomplish. But under her formula,
as I calculate it, California would receive fully 20 percent of the
supplemental amount already appropriated in the bill. Under the
Hutchison formula, not a single State would lose any block grant
funding but there is an adjustment for those particularly high growth
States and States that are well below the national average on the
receipt of Federal funds for welfare spending.
Everybody has a different formula which helps them. Senator Feinstein
is only trying to help her constituents.
But if we get bogged down in a welfare formula fight, there is a good
possibility that welfare reform could be derailed in the Senate.
Realizing that, a group of Senators early on, under the leadership of
Senator Hutchison, came up with a formula that, in a small way, begins
to recognize the need to distribute welfare funds in a more equitable
manner.
The point is this: States that are currently well below the national
average in receipt of Federal funds and State welfare spending and
States that will experience higher than average growth in population
should receive a greater share of the ``growth'' formula. The Hutchison
formula accomplishes this by giving States that meet these criteria a
2.5-percent increase per year in block grant funding starting in fiscal
year 1997. Under this formula, no State loses any block grant funding
and 17 States with particular needs get an increase. So, in States like
Mississippi, where AFDC payments are the lowest in the Nation, a small
stride will be made toward allocating funding in a way that treats poor
children more equitably. And, in States like Arizona, where population
growth is expected to be well above the national average over the next
5 years, a small movement toward equity in funding distribution is also
achieved.
The Feinstein amendment, on the other hand, is based solely on
increases in incidences of poverty. That will upset the balance that
was achieved earlier on the funding formula.
It is based solely on increases in poverty--which can be a built-in
incentive for States to keep people in poverty in order to receive
increases in Federal funding.
It will reward States like California and New York, which already
take a huge chunk of the Federal pot with even additional Federal
dollars. Under the Feinstein amendment, 20 percent of the supplemental
amount already appropriated in the bill will go to California. This is
not fair.
Under the Feinstein amendment, California's spending per person in
poverty will remain well above the national average while Arizona will
continue to hover around the national average. And, under Feinstein,
other States like Mississippi and Texas, will not even reach the
national average in spending by the year 2000.
Under the Feinstein amendment, States that are poor and growing will
continue to be poor and growing without the necessary 10.4 percent
increase that the Hutchison formula would provide. California, which
already receives three times more in Federal funding per poor child--
$1,016 per child--than a child in Arizona--$361 per child--will receive
a much larger increase than Arizona.
Since there will no longer be a Federal/State match required in
welfare spending under the Dole welfare bill, there must be a movement
toward equity in Federal welfare funding to the States. We cannot
expend all of our resources in just a few States.
[[Page S 13204]]
The Hutchison formula is a very fair formula and I urge my colleagues
to reject the amendment of the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just want to say this formula would
not have come about without Senator Kyl and Senator Mack, who is the
next speaker and I want to yield the remainder of my time tonight to
Senator Mack from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute and 10
seconds.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the Hutchison formula has been
inappropriately referred to as a ``supplemental'' grant to States. This
is a misleading characterization of the additional moneys provided in
this legislation. It implies that certain States have been able to
negotiate a sort of slush fund or bonus for themselves unfairly.
In reality the Hutchison formula in the underlying legislation begins
to chip away at historical inequities between States due to the Federal
Government's present system of awarding AFDC moneys.
This debate is and should be about equity.
The Feinstein amendment not only undermines an honest attempt to
provide some equity and parity between States but it does so in a way
that in essence rewards States for increasing the number of people
living in poverty each year.
This policy, Mr. President, runs counter to the welfare reform bill's
goal of encouraging States to get people off welfare and into work. Any
incentives that we create to reward States for reducing their welfare
caseloads would be nullified by Senator Feinstein's amendment.
The Hutchison formula provides funds for States which have been
historically below the national average of Federal welfare spending and
at the same time experiencing an above average population growth. These
qualifiers appropriately identify those States with the most need and
begins to move those States, albeit modestly, toward parity.
California currently receives $1,016 per person living in poverty
compared to the $363 Florida receives per poor person living in
poverty. Under the Hutchison formula, in the year 2000, Florida will
still not reach parity with California--Florida will only be receiving
about $400 per person living in poverty. Yet the Feinstein amendment
will give California $160 million additional over the next 5 years.
Providing States like California with additional money, when they
already receive more Federal dollars per recipient than almost any
other State--does not mean equity to me. I urge my colleagues to
support the underlying bill and vote against the Feinstein amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak for as much time
as I may use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized. She has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In deference to my opponents on this issue, and I
very much respect them, there is really a difference in viewpoint here.
Let me explain where I am coming from. For more than a half a
century, the way the Federal allocation has been determined has been
based on a State determination of benefit level, so a State decides
what its cost of living is, how much it needs to sustain a poor family,
and sets that amount. And then the Federal Government matches that
amount.
Suddenly, what is being said, as I hear it, is those States that had
low benefit levels or what amounts to a very low maintenance of effort
are now going to be rewarded with a growth fund. California's grant is
$607 a month because California decided that the basic cost of living
necessary for a family was at least that. And California would put up
one half of it. If a State like Alabama, for example, decides that they
only want to put up $164, then the Federal Government only matches a
percentage of that amount.
Where the arguments made on the other side of the aisle do not ring
true to me is only 19 States are benefited in the Dole bill with the
growth fund. That means any other State that has growth is not going to
get any money under this bill.
In the Feinstein amendment, 28 States have a net benefit over the
language. Let me tell you which they are and what the additional annual
amount is, over and above the Dole bill, by the fifth year.
Alaska, $2,029,000; California, $64,922,000; Delaware, $1,217,000;
Hawaii, $2,840,000; Idaho, $289,000; Illinois, $9,062,000; Indiana,
$6.627 million; Iowa, $2.164 million; Kansas, $3.381 million; Kentucky,
$4.058 million; Maryland, $6.763 million; Michigan, $5.275 million;
Minnesota, $5.816 million; Missouri, $4.058 million; Nebraska, $1.758
million; Nevada, $2.488 million, New Hampshire, $812,000, New Jersey,
$5.545 million; New York, $1.217 million; North Dakota, $135,000. Ohio,
$7.709 million; Oklahoma, $2.840 million; Oregon, $7.304 million;
Pennsylvania, $5.004 million; Vermont, $271,000. State of Washington,
$16.095 million; West Virginia, $541,000. Wisconsin, $6.492 million;
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the comparison tables be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT, WITH GRANT
ADJUSTED IN FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 2000 FOR CHANGE IN POPULATION THE FEINSTEIN BILL
[Share of change in population is used as a proxy for share of change in the poverty population (dollars in
thousands)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Percentage
State 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 change: change:
1996-2000 1996-2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............. $106,858 $108,297 $109,698 $111,189 $112,674 $5,816 5.44
Alaska............... 66,348 66,838 67,295 67,726 68,377 2,029 3.06
Arizona.............. 230,462 232,881 235,383 237,941 240,606 10,144 4.40
Arkansas............. 59,900 60,604 61,351 62,163 62,875 2,976 4.97
California........... 3,685,571 3,700,973 3,716,869 3,733,403 3,750,492 64,922 1.76
Colorado............. 130,713 133,163 135,698 138,193 140,857 10,144 7.76
Connecticut.......... 247,498 247,498 247,498 247,498 247,498 0 0.00
Delaware............. 30,239 30,546 30,807 31,125 31,457 1,217 4.03
District of Columbia. 95,882 95,882 95,882 95,882 95,882 0 0.00
Florida.............. 581,871 589,311 596,826 604,409 612,167 30,297 5.21
Georgia.............. 359,139 362,691 366,395 370,162 374,017 14,878 4.14
Hawaii............... 94,964 95,607 96,289 97,031 97,805 2,840 2.99
Idaho................ 33,696 34,584 35,589 36,550 37,483 3,787 11.24
Illinois............. 583,219 585,485 587,699 590,010 592,281 9,062 1.55
Indiana.............. 227,031 228,623 230,249 232,050 233,658 6,627 2.92
Iowa................. 133,938 134,459 134,948 135,513 136,102 2,164 1.62
Kansas............... 111,743 112,569 113,383 114,302 115,124 3,381 3.03
Kentucky............. 188,447 189,457 190,403 191,399 192,504 4,058 2.15
Louisiana............ 164,016 164,751 165,468 166,280 166,992 2,976 1.81
Maine................ 76,333 76,333 76,333 76,333 76,333 0 0.00
Maryland............. 246,947 248,693 250,418 252,065 253,710 6,763 2.74
Massachusetts........ 487,449 487,449 487,449 487,449 487,449 0 0.00
Michigan............. 806,641 808,049 809,417 810,774 811,915 5,275 0.65
Minnesota............ 287,137 288,546 290,040 291,468 292,953 5,816 2.03
Mississippi.......... 87,038 87,559 88,111 88,711 89,337 2,299 2.64
Missouri............. 232,505 233,454 234,461 235,556 236,562 4,058 1.75
Montana.............. 44,948 45,346 45,768 46,129 46,706 1,758 3.91
Nebraska............. 60,384 60,782 61,141 61,664 62,142 1,758 2.91
Nevada............... 35,964 37,495 38,993 40,688 42,186 6,222 17.30
[[Page S 13205]]
New Hampshire........ 42,577 42,791 43,019 43,167 43,388 812 1.91
New Jersey........... 417,198 418,698 420,101 421,430 422,743 5,545 1.33
New Mexico........... 129,839 130,788 131,795 132,890 133,897 4,058 3.13
New York............. 2,308,405 2,308,986 2,309,604 2,309,487 2,309,622 1,217 0.05
North Carolina....... 347,837 350,991 354,210 357,580 361,092 13,255 3.81
North Dakota......... 25,978 26,009 25,978 26,077 25,113 135 0.52
Ohio................. 769,144 771,073 772,930 774,852 776,853 7,709 1.00
Oklahoma............. 166,123 166,736 167,385 168,190 168,964 2,840 1.71
Oregon............... 183,038 184,753 186,509 188,353 190,342 7,304 3.99
Pennsylvania......... 658,388 659,705 660,975 662,226 663,392 5,004 0.76
Rhode Island......... 92,633 92,633 92,633 92,633 92,633 0 0.0
South Carolina....... 103,291 104,607 105,941 107,326 108,836 5,545 5.37
South Dakota......... 23,019 23,264 23,524 23,708 24,101 1,082 4.70
Tennessee............ 205,981 208,063 210,209 212,476 214,772 8,791 4.27
Texas................ 507,442 516,873 526,435 536,672 546,800 39,359 7.76
Utah................. 83,847 85,133 85,560 88,079 89,663 5,816 6.94
Vermont.............. 49,365 49,457 49,555 49,661 49,636 271 0.55
Virginia............. 175,260 178,015 180,812 183,625 186,486 11,226 6.41
Washington........... 432,328 436,033 439,963 444,039 448,423 16,095 3.72
West Virginia........ 119,017 119,140 119,269 119,411 119,558 541 0.45
Wisconsin............ 334,783 336,345 337,938 339,606 341,275 6,492 1.94
Wyoming.............. 23,275 23,490 23,717 23,964 24,222 947 4.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total....... 16,695,648 16,781,508 16,868,924 16,959,116 17,050,958 355,310 2.14
==========================================================================================
One-year, year-to-
year change......... ........... 85,860 87,416 90,192 91,842 ........... ...........
One-year amount over
fiscal year 1996
grant............... 0 85,860 173,276 263,468 355,310 ........... ...........
Cumulative amount
over fiscal year
1996 grant.......... 0 85,860 259,136 522,604 877,914 ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table prepared by The Congressional Research Service [CRS] Fiscal year 1996 allocations are based on the
Federal share of expenditures for AFDC, EA, and Title IV-A child care plus the JOBS grant. Adjustments for
poverty population assume no change in State poverty rates. Therefore, percentage increases are based on
percentage increases in total State population. Change in State population are based on Census Bureau
projections of the population for the States.
TABLE 2.--PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS TO THE STATES UNDER S. 1120, FISCAL YEARS 1996-2000 (THE DOLE BILL)
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Dollar Percentage
State ----------------------------------------------------------------- change: change:
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1996-2000 1996-2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............. $106,858 $109,530 $112,268 $115,075 $117,951 11,093 10.4
Alaska............... 66,348 66,348 66,348 66,348 66,348 0 0.0
Arizona.............. 230,462 236,223 242,129 284,182 254,386 23,925 10.4
Arkansas............. 59,900 61,397 62,932 64,506 66,118 6,218 10.4
California........... 3,685,571 3,685,571 3,685,571 3,685,571 3,685,571 0 0.0
Colorado............. 130,713 133,981 137,330 140,764 144,283 13,570 10.4
Connecticut.......... 247,498 247,498 247,498 247,498 247,498 0 0.0
Delaware............. 30,239 30,239 30,239 30,239 30,239 0 0.0
District of Columbia. 95,882 95,882 95,882 95,882 95,882 0 0.0
Florida.............. 581,871 596,417 611,328 626,611 642,276 60,406 10.4
Georgia.............. 359,139 368,117 377,320 386,753 396,422 37,283 10.4
Hawaii............... 94,964 94,964 94,964 94,964 94,964 0 0.0
Idaho................ 33,696 34,538 35,402 36,287 37,194 3,498 10.4
Illinois............. 583,219 583,219 583,219 583,219 583,219 0 0.0
Indiana.............. 227,031 227,031 227,031 227,031 227,031 0 0.0
Iowa................. 133,938 133,938 133,938 133,938 133,938 0 0.0
Kansas............... 111,743 111,743 111,743 111,743 111,743 0 0.0
Kentucky............. 188,447 188,447 188,447 188,447 188,447 0 0.0
Louisiana............ 164,016 168,117 172,320 176,628 181,043 17,027 10.4
Maine................ 76,333 76,333 76,333 76,333 76,333 0 0.0
Maryland............. 246,947 246,947 246,947 246,947 246,947 0 0.0
Massachusetts........ 487,449 487,449 487,449 487,449 487,449 0 0.0
Michigan............. 806,641 806,641 806,641 806,641 806,641 0. 0.0
Minnesota............ 287,137 287,137 287,137 287,137 287,137 0 0.0
Mississippi.......... 87,038 89,214 91,444 93,730 96,074 9,036 10.4
Missouri............. 232,505 232,505 232,505 232,505 232,505 0 0.0
Montana.............. 44,948 46,071 47,223 48,404 49,614 4,666 10.4
Nebraska............. 60,384 60,384 60,384 60,384 60,384 0 0.0
Nevada............... 35,964 36,863 37,785 38,729 39,698 3,734 10.4
New Hampshire........ 42,577 42,577 42,577 42,577 42,577 0 0.0
New Jersey........... 417,198 417,198 417,198 417,198 417,198 0 0.0
New Mexico........... 129,839 133,085 136,412 139,823 143,318 13,479 10.4
New York............. 2,308,405 2,308,405 2,308,405 2,308,405 2,308,405 0 0.0
North Carolina....... 347,837 356,533 365,446 374,582 383,947 36,110 10.4
North Dakota......... 25,978 25,978 25,978 25,978 25,978 0 0.0
Ohio................. 769,144 769,144 769,144 769,144 769,144 0 0.0
Oklahoma............. 166,123 166,123 166,123 166,123 166,123 0 0.0
Oregon............... 183,038 183,038 183,038 183,038 183,038 0 0.0
Pennsylvania......... 658,388 658,388 658,388 658,388 658,388 0 0.0
Rhode Island......... 92,633 92,633 92,633 92,633 92,633 0 0.0
South Carolina....... 103,291 105,873 108,520 111,233 114,014 10,723 10.4
South Dakota......... 23,019 23,594 23,594 24,184 24,184 1,165 5.1
Tennessee............ 205,981 211,130 216,409 221,819 227,364 21,383 10.4
Texas................ 507,442 520,128 533,131 546,459 560,121 52,679 10.4
Utah................. 83,847 85,943 88,092 90,294 92,551 8,704 10.4
Vermont.............. 49,365 49,365 49,365 49,365 49,365 0 0.0
Virginia............. 175,260 179,641 184,132 188,735 193,454 18,194 10.4
Washington........... 432,328 432,328 432,328 432,328 432,328 0 0.0
West Virginia........ 119,017 119,017 119,017 119,017 119,017 0 0.0
Wisconsin............ 334,783 334,783 334,783 334,783 334,783 0 0.0
Wyoming.............. 23,275 23,857 24,454 25,065 25,692 2,416 10.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........... 16,695,648 16,781,508 16,868,924 16,959,116 17,050,958 ........... ...........
==========================================================================================
Year-to-year change.. ........... 85,860 87,416 90,192 91,842 ........... ...........
One year amount over
fiscal year 1996
grant............... ........... 85,860 173,276 263,468 355,310 ........... ...........
Cumulative amount
over fiscal year
1996 grant.......... ........... 85,860 259,136 522,604 877,914 ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Estimates prepared by CRS based on financial data on AFDC and related programs from the Department of
Health and Human Services [DHHS] and poverty and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
[[Page S 13206]]
TABLE 3.--COMPARISON OF STATE ALLOCATIONS: PROPOSAL TO ADJUST THE GRANT EVERY TWO YEARS FOR CHANGES IN
POPULATION COMPARED WITH S. 1120 (CHANGE FROM DOLE BILL WITH FEINSTEIN)
[Changes in population are used as a proxy for changes in poverty population in proposal (dollars in thousands)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar
State 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... $0 -$1,232 -$2,570 -$3,886 -$5,277 -$5,277
Alaska............................ 0 490 947 1,378 2,029 2,029
Arizona........................... 0 -3,343 -6,745 -10,240 -13,781 -13,781
Arkansas.......................... 0 -793 -1,581 -2,342 -3,243 -3,243
California........................ 0 15,402 31,298 47,832 64,992 64,922
Colorado.......................... 0 -818 -1,632 -2,571 -3,426 -3,426
Connecticut....................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
Delaware.......................... 0 306 568 886 1,217 1,217
District of Columbia.............. 0 0 0 0 0 0
Florida........................... 0 -7,106 -14,502 -22,202 -30,109 -30,109
Georgia........................... 0 -5,426 -10,925 -16,591 -22,405 -22,405
Hawaii............................ 0 643 1,325 2,067 2,840 2,840
Idaho............................. 0 46 187 263 289 289
Illinois.......................... 0 2,266 4,480 6,791 9,062 9,062
Indiana........................... 0 1,592 3,218 5,019 6,627 6,627
Iowa.............................. 0 521 1,010 1,575 2,164 2,164
Kansas............................ 0 827 1,641 2,559 3,381 3,381
Kentucky.......................... 0 1,010 1,956 2,953 4,058 4,058
Louisiana......................... 0 -3,366 -6,852 -10,348 -14,051 -14,051
Maine............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maryland.......................... 0 1,745 3,471 5,118 6,763 6,763
Massachusetts..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
Michigan.......................... 0 1,409 2,776 4,134 5,275 5,275
Minnesota......................... 0 1,409 2,903 4,330 5,816 5,816
Mississippi....................... 0 -1,655 -3,334 -5,019 -6,736 -6,736
Missouri.......................... 0 949 1,956 3,051 4,058 4,058
Montana........................... 0 -726 -1,455 -2,275 -2,908 -2,908
Nebraska.......................... 0 398 757 1,279 1,758 1,758
Nevada............................ 0 632 1,208 1,959 2,488 2,488
New Hampshire..................... 0 214 442 591 812 812
New Jersey........................ 0 1,500 2,903 4,232 5,545 5,545
New Mexico........................ 0 -2,297 -4,617 -6,932 -9,421 -9,421
New York.......................... 0 582 1,199 1,083 1,217 1,217
North Carolina.................... 0 -5,542 -11,236 -17,002 -22,855 -22,855
North Dakota...................... 0 31 0 98 135 135
Ohio.............................. 0 1,929 3,786 5,708 7,709 7,709
Oklahoma.......................... 0 612 1,262 2,067 2,840 2,840
Oregon............................ 0 1,715 3,471 5,315 7,304 7,304
Pennsylvania...................... 0 1,317 2,587 3,838 5,004 5,004
Rhode Island...................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Carolina.................... 0 -1,266 -2,579 -3,907 -5,178 -5,178
South Dakota...................... 0 -331 -71 -476 -83 -83
Tennessee......................... 0 -3,067 -6,200 -9,342 -12,592 -12,592
Texas............................. 0 -3,255 -6,696 -9,787 -13,320 -13,320
Utah.............................. 0 -810 -1,531 -2,215 -2,889 -2,889
Vermont........................... 0 92 189 295 271 271
Virginia.......................... 0 -1,626 -3,320 -5,110 -6,968 -6,968
Washington........................ 0 3,705 7,635 11,712 16,095 16,095
West Virginia..................... 0 122 252 394 541 541
Wisconsin......................... 0 1,562 3,155 4,823 6,492 6,492
Wyoming........................... 0 -368 -737 -1,101 -1,470 -1,470
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................ 0 0 0 0 0 0
=============================================================================
Year-to-year change............... 0 0 0 0 0 ...........
One year amount over fiscal year
1996 grant....................... 0 0 0 0 0 ...........
Cumulative amount over fiscal year
1996 grant....................... ........... 0 0 0 0 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Estimates prepared by CRS based on financial data on AFDC and related programs from the Department of
Health and Human Services [DHHS] and poverty and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. These tables show how 28 States would gain as a
difference between what the Dole bill would give and what this
amendment would provide. For the most part, many of these are States
with a higher benefit level. These States have decided they were going
to spend what they needed to spend to have a poor family be able to
exist in their States. What I object to about the Dole bill is that a
State is locked out because a State has had a high benefit level and a
maintenance of effort and has been willing to provide for their people.
Now, they are frozen out of the growth fund.
California, the biggest State, with the most poor people: there is
nothing in the growth fund for California. And the reason that is being
given is, well, you do not deserve any money because you fund half of
$607 a month from California taxpayers to support poor people. So,
because California and these 27 other States have had a higher
maintenance of effort, and said we are going to fund poor people,
suddenly they are left out of any growth fund.
There is no hold harmless. They are left out. They are locked out, and
that is what I object to in this language.
You can come to California, or any high cost-of-living State, and
attempt to live. And it is very much tougher. This is the way the
formula has been figured now for over a half century--based on a state
match. The Hutchison formula is a stark change from that. But it is a
penalty. And it says if you have funded your poor people in the past,
as a State, you are now not going to figure into the growth formula.
So let me say another thing. The House of Representatives in its
wisdom has passed a formula which is straight across the board based on
growth in a State. The only difference in what they did and what I am
suggesting we do is base it on growth of poor people. If a State wants
to support their poor population, I think that is fine. If they do not,
what we are saying, if the Hutchison language is accepted, is,
therefore, the Federal Government should reward them for not doing it
by providing a growth fund for them. And I frankly cannot agree as
someone who has participated in local government helping make some of
these decisions. I simply cannot agree that that is the fair way to do
it.
So we have presented this. Again 28 States benefit, I have given the
amounts. Twenty-two States lose money in this way.
But I believe it is fair. It is based on a census as ratified by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 33 seconds remaining.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield my 33 seconds.
Amendment No. 2501
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last week I offered an amendment that is
designed to give States greater authority to crackdown on welfare
fraud.
This amendment would allow States to intercept Federal income tax
refunds in order to recover overpayments of welfare benefits due to
fraud or error.
This technique, called tax intercept, would be used as a measure of a
last resort against former welfare recipients who defraud the system.
Originally, welfare was designed as a transitional program to help
people become self-sufficient.
Many families find themselves
[[Page S 13207]]
in circumstances beyond their control and legitimately need temporary
help. However, as we all know, far too many individuals abuse the
system, making public assistance a way of life. This amendment is
designed to crack down on the persistent fraud problems that plague our
welfare system.
It is estimated that welfare overpayments represent about 4 percent
of payments paid by AFDC, food stamp, and Medicaid programs. Many of
these overpayments are due to deliberate fraud. This type of abuse is
an insult both to hard-working taxpayers who struggle daily without
Government assistance as well as families on welfare who play by the
rules.
Currently, a similar tax intercept is reducing fraud successfully in
the Food Stamp Program in 32 States. My amendment would create a
similar model for AFDC. It is also designed to protect taxpayer
privacy.
Just as important, my amendment would save States at least $250
million, enabling them to use the savings for those who truly need
assistance. The most recent estimate of this proposal was done in 1992,
when the United Council on Welfare Fraud estimated that States could
save $49 million per year. If a similar analysis were done today, I
expect the savings from my amendment would be even greater.
I am pleased this amendment will be accepted. It means getting tough
on the cheats who abuse our welfare system.
I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Bryan be added as an
original cosponsor of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my colleague for his cosponsorship and support
and leadership in this area.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining with Senator
Pressler as a cosponsor on this amendment to provide States the option
to use the IRS Federal income tax refund intercept process to try to
recapture AFDC-type benefit overpayments.
Some years ago, Congress provided for an IRS Federal income tax
intercept process to be used to help retrieve child support payment
arrearages. When an individual is in arrears on his or her child
support payments, the IRS refund intercept allows the State to notify
the IRS of the arrearage. If the individual is to receive a Federal
income tax refund, the IRS can intercept the refund. Rather than having
the tax refund go directly to the individual, the refund amount is
intercepted and paid toward the child support arrearage.
As I know a number of my colleagues have also done in their home
States, I have spent significant time this year visiting welfare
offices in both northern and southern Nevada. During those visits, I
spent a significant amount of time listening to welfare eligibility
workers. It surprised me to learn from these eligibility workers that
State welfare agencies did not have the authority to notify the IRS to
intercept Federal income tax refunds to try to recapture benefit
overpayments for AFDC-type cash assistance.
My experience in spending time with those who are actually involved
in the welfare program, who administer it on a day-to-day basis, has
been enormously helpful to me. They have helped explain some of the
complexities in our welfare system, some of its inconsistencies and
some of its frustrations that welfare workers experience when our best
intended policies are hopelessly inconsistent, or when they find their
hands tied because of some nonsensical rule that requires them to do
certain things.
This is why I am particularly pleased to join on as an original
cosponsor of the Pressler-Bryan amendment. This amendment provides an
answer to one of those frustrations. When benefit overpayments are made
in AFDC-type cash assistance programs under this bill, State welfare
agencies will now have the IRS refund intercept process available to
them.
Unfortunately, many times welfare recipients who receive benefit
overpayments, and most frequently this occurs in the AFDC program, are
able to walk away knowing they are not going to have to repay the
benefit overage. Those individuals essentially have been unjustly
enriched as a result of a fraudulent overpayment made to them. When
they later qualify for a Federal income tax refund, the States are
powerless to try to intercept that refund, and recapture the money
rightfully due the State.
Under the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota and
myself, we now add a new category to cover those individuals who have
received benefit overpayment by reason of their fraud, or for whatever
reason the circumstances led to the overpayment. Now States are
empowered, through the IRS, to intercept any tax refund check that
would otherwise be paid to that welfare recipient. And as the Senator
from South Dakota has pointed out, the amount of savings to the
taxpayers is enormous. This amendment makes a lot of sense. Expanding
the IRS refund intercept process to AFDC-type benefit overpayments
makes common sense, and allows all States greater flexibility in the
administration of the welfare system.
I applaud the Senator for his leadership and associate myself with
his comments on this important amendment. This is the kind of
bipartisan work that I am delighted to participate in, and which can
help make this welfare reform proposal workable for the States.
I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.
Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. PRESSLER. If we could deal with this amendment, it has been
cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the consideration of amendment 2501.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] proposes an
amendment numbered 2501.
Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered as read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Friday, September 8,
1995, edition of the Record.)
Mr. PRESSLER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
So the amendment (No. 2501) was agreed to.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________